Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pgms51tqmdcb4pg4ubpamo2gnca4ne8g6v_at_4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:45:47 GMT, "mountain man"
> <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>
>>> The inexistence of relationships between the RM and the applications
>>> does not mean that the RM is useless for developing applications. It
>>> only means that it is not being used.
>>
>>
>>I think that you would agree that it obviously should be used,
>>because of the downstream benefits, but it is not. Does this not
>>tell you something?
>
> Yes, that we live in a very imperfect world.

It needs a bit more work. ;-)

>>It tells me that the model - as it is currently
>>promulgated - is not viewed as being applicable to the task by
>>the people involved in conducting the task.
>
> The problem is that the people who know about application programming
> don't know about databases and vice-versa. Date and Pascal don't want
> to know anything about application programming, for instance.

This is not a good thing since from any form of theory the application software layer is inextricably related to the RDBMS software layer.

>>> We don't need a new model to coordinate the applications with the
>>> DBMS, it is rather easy to do that with the existent computational
>>> models.
>>
>>
>>Do you have any references in regard to these
>>computational models?
>
> Make a google search for:
>
> "Relational Model"
> "Object Oriented Programming"
> "Structured Programming"
> "Functional Programming"

These computational models seem to be models of assembling code that may have little or no regard for the database services.

>>> What I mean is that we can integrate both things when we want. There
>>> is not any theoretical problem.
>>
>>
>>When you say "we" you are speaking in the capacity
>>of a specific role-type associated with a database system
>
> I mean "we" humans :)
>
>>(See my recent post with a list of role-types). I would
>>like to ask you which of these roletypes best summarises
>>your perspective.
>
> Suppliers of development tools. RDBMS included.

OK.

> IMO an RDBMS should be a part of an integrated and coordinated
> Information System development tool set.

Of course it should be, and in fact if it is implemented efficiently the RDBMS software becomes the heart of the information system, with the tools filling the gaps.

>>From your perspective of this role-type (yet to be defined
>>by yourself) you perceive no problem,
>
> I perceive a terrible problem: good development tools don't exist, and
> they are hard and expensive to develop.

That appears to be the case.
Having the tool is not enough.
It needs to be capably wielded.

>> however I would
>>not hesitate to point out that the integration of database
>>and application software is a major problem for many
>>organisations (hence use of external consultants).
>
> It is, but not due to the lack of a theoretical model. It is due to
> the lack of decent tools and the scarcity of good professionals.

In theory the interface between the RDBMS software (layer) and the application software (layer) might have some generic properties that are amenable to modelling optimal requirements from the database perspective.

This to me appears as an extention to the data model in recognition that such an interface is standard operations for anyone dealing with RDBMS software.

>>> But to integrate database objects with programming objects is all we
>>> need to integrate database objects with programming objects :)
>>
>>Again, I suspect the "we" perspective here to be related to
>>a specific solution or product related to the RDBMS rather
>>than to the development and extention of database theory.
>
> The problem is not in database theory, it is outside.

While that may be (and I do agree with most of what you have to say above for we probably have a common axiom of operation that resolves to putting as much information as possible in the RDBMS layer rather that the application layer) there may be more that the model can do for the world than what it is doing at the moment.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Fri Apr 15 2005 - 02:59:12 CEST